Ethics / Morality

“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.” Penn Jillette

There’s another post with a similar message I liked; went something like this… Jesus says, “I told YOU to help the poor, not to get government to do it for you.”

My Bill is Cosby. Definitely a childhood memory. A great one. I went to bed listening to records (not recordings) of his comedy. Going to the dentist. Racing go carts. And who could forget Noah and “who’s gonna clean up that mess down there?” He holds a doctorate in education. I read several of his books; good stuff.

I have to give you some leniency here about Bill Clinton. Though his womanizing was far more public, he had far more people and organizations giving him cover. The media, the feminists, the Dems, for example. His own wife, amazingly. And he was doing such great things for the country, how could we let a little thing like destroying women for his own sexual pleasure get in the way. (That last line was sarcastic if you didn’t catch it.)

I’ll double down. I’ll not only give up Cosby, but I’ll give up all his supporters as well – if you give up Clinton and all his. Deal?

There are morals and ethics of a higher nature. Whether you think they’re “by God” or “of nature” may matter a little, but the point remains. There are ethics and truisms that are above reproach. I know, there are moral relativists out there. And those who believe there are no rules. Screw ’em.

Thou shalt not steal. Notice that there are no qualifiers. Not even “but I was starving” counts.

That doesn’t stop the government. Roughly 1/3 of government spending is on welfare (social and corporate) and other “redistribution of wealth” programs. This is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. It’s immoral. All that crap should be cut from government at all levels. Supporting those who need support is much better done charitably and locally.

But, you say, if we don’t extract the money from some people, they won’t be charitable. And you know what, that’s their right not to be charitable. Live with it.

Here’s the biggy. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE DEBT (which is what, about $17 trillion these days) is stealing from the future. It’s stealing from my kids, and grandkids, and kids that aren’t even born yet.

Heck yes, I’m going to be judgmental. We have to be. We make survival judgments all day long. And we should.

Whether we’re perfect or not.

I saw a post that said, “Before you judge me, make sure you’re perfect.” Don’t count on it, sister. If you’re coming at me with a weapon, I’m going to judge you to be a threat and do whatever possible to stop you, including the use of lethal force. Whether I’m perfect or not.

If you’re a thief, I’m going to judge you accordingly. Whether or not I’m perfect. If you lie, I will judge you to be a liar. Whether or not I’m perfect.

In fact, I know I’m not perfect. But that is not going to slow me down making judgments throughout the day that hopefully will support my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Rush Limbaugh made an interesting point recently. What if the rules of politics were as respected and as adhered to as rules in sports? You break a rule in sports and you get penalized, almost immediately. Everyone respects the rule books. It’s what makes the game fair. You know, the “even playing field.”

Not so in politics. Politicians lie left and right. And with virtually no consequences. In fact, often to their advantage. One politician I could name owes millions to the IRS and nobody seems to care, nothing happens to penalize this politician.

What if… What if we demanded that our politicians play by the rules?! Say the rules of law including the Constitution. What if there were real consequences that set the offender back a few yards. I have a dream…

This may be hard to swallow, particularly if you get most of your info from the mainstream media. But it’s true nonetheless: CO2 is not a pollutant.

It’s a mainstay for life on this planet. Ever hear of the carbon cycle? It’s what animals (including humans) breath out, it fuels the metabolism of plants, and it’s recycled on a grand scale by geologic processes.

And contrary to a common misconception, CO2 levels do not lead global temperatures, they follow them. Generally, CO2 levels go up AFTER global temperatures go up, and CO2 levels go down AFTER global temperatures go down.

Controlling carbon levels, carbon credits, etc. are total hooey, a total waste of resources that would be far better spent on real problems.

“Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” Albert Einstein

Why is that?

There are several traits that make up character, including Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring, and Citizenship. One list of character traits includes 638 items!

I’d like to put Honesty at the top of the list for this discussion. Honesty with yourself, honesty with others, honesty with Nature, etc. There is no room for politically correct pussyfooting around. There is no room for fudging the data to make some point.

I was trained to be honest about (in fact, to point out) every counterpoint I could possibly imagine to any point I might be trying to make, to any theory I might try to posit. In today’s discussions, it seems to me, not only are too many scientists willing to ignore “inconvenient” facts, but also will use all manner of fallacy to dismiss anyone that suggests anything negative about their position.

It’s a shame. But it can help you spot junk science, and junk scientists.

There’s a right size for everything. Both too much and too little can be too bad.

Money spent over protecting is money spent immorally. It’s money that would have been far better spent on real problems.

Let’s say that we can show that 2 ppm SO2 in the air is harmful. And, there is no evidence that 0.2 ppm SO2 in the air has any harmful effects. Requiring plants to scrub emissions to 0.02 ppm as opposed to 0.2 ppm is wasting money. And the amounts of money spent to get that “last little bit” can be outrageous compared to getting to a reasonable emission. The difference between the money spent getting to reasonable and getting to unreasonable is money immorally spent. It’s wrong to force the emitter to cough that much extra up, and it’s wrong to mandate that it be spent on “just in case”.

So, yes, the details matter. You do have to do the math. If the evidence changes regarding what’s harmful and what isn’t, then fine; reevaluate. Otherwise, find better fish to fry.

Welcome

Analogies. Principles. Truisms. Character Traits. Logic. Probably others will get thrown in over time. I find that these "techniques" provide handles to understanding or "seeing" otherwise confusing or conflicting messages. With any luck, clarity of thought can be encouraged using these ways to look at things.. And sometimes I may just throw something else, randomly, into the mix. Thank you for taking a Look At It This Way!